Teaching the Second Amendment

SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You are probably right and naturally before the law, the amendments are all equal. But, I would contest that 1 and 2 were at least strategically placed by the Founders to make sure people remembered them.

They do seem to be more fundamental to preserving representative democracy than the others.

Moreover, the modern American economy is built on breaking the 10th commandment. I figure the owners of business and their advertisers who promote and "aspirational lifestyle" figured God probably didn't even mean the whole coveting of the house thing, otherwise he wouldn't have put it last. He was probably just trying to come up with something to get a round figure.

[Gumption]

I disagree with you that the school getting something right should have made me more suspicious.

I also disagree that I'm a silly person. It's not like I said "what do you do with an Elephant with 3 balls? You walk him a pitch to the Rhino."

[Gumption]

I agree with everything you said. And you said it very well I might add. I did/do explain all of that to my children at every opportunity. But of all the short ways the teacher could have described the 2nd Amendment "the right to own guns" is as right as I could have expected.

[absolootezer0]

house contract is a good illustration. but people who believe in a living, breathing constitution would support the emminent domain decisions- at least until it came to their house.

[robertpaulsen]

"These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead."

Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right -- ie., the federal government shall not infringe on a state's ability to form a Militia.

Now, it could very well be that all these lower federal courts are wrong, and that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will set them straight. But, given that the U.S. Supreme Court USES these lower court decisions to make their decision, I wouldn't count on it.

[robertpaulsen]

"We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people."

If you understand anything about the Founding Fathers it was that they trusted their state to protect their rights. Back then, as is now, your state defines and protects your individual RKBA -- not the federal government and not the second amendment.

[Still Thinking]

I was actually impressed with the materials given to my daughter on the entire BOR, including the Second, in the public system here in Gilbert, AZ. How they approached the subject in classroom discussion, I don't know.

[Still Thinking]

That's funny. I like it.

[tpaine]

paulsen backs big bro:

Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right -- ie., the federal government shall not infringe on a state's ability to form a Militia.

Ignoring that the 2nd clearly says it is the "-- right of the people --" which shall not be infringed --.
Nice spin paulsen.

Now, it could very well be that all these lower federal courts are wrong, and that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will set them straight. But, given that the U.S. Supreme Court USES these lower court decisions to make their decision, I wouldn't count on it.

Robbie me boyo, we are all well aware by now that you wouldn't raise a finger to protect our RKBA's.

[tpaine]

paulsen erroneously claims:

"--If you understand anything about the Founding Fathers it was that they trusted their state to protect their rights. --"

Not so. In Article VI the founders specifically wrote that "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --" This Constitution, "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; --"

Back then, as is now, your state defines and protects your individual RKBA -- not the federal government and not the second amendment.

Agit-prop, -- straight from the 'majority rule' [democratic] playbook. -- Because you also contend that State & local majorities can prohibit most any-thing, including guns.

Your state ~should~ define and protect your individual RKBA, but in most cases it does not.

[longtermmemmory]

law professors have and continue to do this since the 1960's.


They believe the first nine amendments are about individual rights EXCEPT the second amendment which is a "collective right."

[AnnaZ]

You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.

This here is the key. Values and character are ultimately a parent's responsibility. People need to become more/stay involved.

[longtermmemmory]

actually there are upper level cases which are controling that hold to the contrary.

The first act of the Bush Attorney General was to hold that the second amendment is an individuals right.

The lower cases are just judges who are anti gun.

[robertpaulsen]

"The first act of the Bush Attorney General was to hold that the second amendment is an individuals right."

Yes, he did. His opinion and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

What if Hillary is elected and her AG says it's not. What then? Will you then say this "upper case" opinion is the law of the land?

"The lower cases are just judges who are anti gun."

Perhaps. But it is these lower court opinions that the U.S. Supreme Court looks to when forming their opinion. If 99 cases are decided as a collective right and one case is an individual right, how do you think the USSC would vote. (Not how do you hope -- how do you think?)

[fish hawk]

Or, if guns kill people then a fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

[Dead Corpse]

Republic. Not a democracy. Other than that, good post.

[Dead Corpse]

...every lower federal court...

Bliss. Nunn. Cockrum. Chandler. Beard. Brown. Kramer. Emmerson.

Don't you ever get tired of spewing the same old lies?

[tpaine]

Don't you ever get tired of spewing the same old lies?

Your affirmative answer will come shortly, even if he ignores your actual question.

[Dead Corpse]

I know I shouldn't be wasting my time, but I just couldn't let such an egregious lie go without a response.

[KC Burke]

I think the whole debate over the definition of "militia" is playing into the hands of the totalitarian leftists. The "milita" phrase is clearly an explanitory phrase meant to indicate the importance of the main restriction of the amendment. It isn't a phrase written to be a modifier.

In starting to teach national citizenship issues to 10 to 16 year olds, I always ask why they see this amendment as an important right. In the majority, having been taught to frame all questions with an individual rationalistic interpretation, they say, "Well, some people like to hunt and we should be able to hunt for food, etcetera, etcetera.

I then use the importance-explanitory clause to instill the historical necessity of the right protected by the amendment, thereby stearing them away from both the hunting weapon false utilitarian arguement and rationalistic trapping to their understanding in general.

To restate my point, what the militia was, is or should be, is not important except to explain the worth of an armed citizenry in general and from an historical perspective.